[funerr]

ChatGPT summary:

Prototaxites was a massive, trunk-like organism (up to ~8m tall, ~1m wide) that dominated land ~420–370 million years ago, long before trees or complex plants existed. It looked like a tree, but chemical evidence suggests it didn’t photosynthesize. Internally it was made of interwoven microscopic tubes, unlike plant tissue. It’s often described as a giant fungus, but it doesn’t cleanly match modern fungi either, and some researchers think it may represent an entirely extinct branch of eukaryotic life. In other words, early “forests” may have been dominated by something we don’t have a modern analog for.

[hresvelgr]

ChatGPT copypasta isn't helpful, or interesting. If I wanted a ChatGPT explanation, I would have gone to ChatGPT.

[Gravityloss]

If no photosynthesis, where did it get energy? Modern fungi feed on plant remains.

[adrian_b]

That is a very good question.

Plants grow tall to be able to gather light, instead of staying in a shadow.

Fungi and many other terrestrial organisms that reproduce like fungi (e.g. slime molds and myxobacteria) grow above the ground only in order to be able to launch their spores into the wind.

It does not seem possible to explain the size of Prototaxites by the need of launching spores in the wind.

The only plausible explanation is that it was tall in order to ensure access to light.

If it was not a plant, it might have had a symbiotic relationship with a phototrophic living being, which grew on the surface of Prototaxites, i.e. either a blue-green alga (Cyanobacteria) or a green alga, exactly like the present lichens. Prototaxites could have provided access to light, water and minerals, while the alga would have provided food.

[jibal]

That summary is more helpful and interesting than a comment whining about it. According to the staff, HN is aimed toward maximizing curiosity--summaries contribute to that, attempts to shut down information because of its source do not.

[binary132]

”Peter Griffin here to explain the article!”